Case Law Details
In re Dwarka Prosad Agarwala (GST AAR West Bengal)
1.1 At the outset, we would like to make it clear that the provisions of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the CGST Act, for short) and the West Bengal Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (the WBGST Act, for short) have the same provisions in like matter except for certain provisions. Therefore, unless a mention is specifically made to such dissimilar provisions, a reference to the CGST Act would also mean reference to the corresponding similar provisions in the WBGST Act. Further to the earlier, henceforth for the purposes of these proceedings, the expression ‘GST Act’ would mean the CGST Act and the WBGST Act both.
1.2 The applicant is stated to be an agent of Indian Oil Corporation Limited (IOCL) and is engaged in the distribution of Superior Kerosene Oil for domestic purposes to fair price dealers. The applicant is entitled to supply the goods only to dealers which are permitted / approved by the Director of Consumer Goods, Department of Food and Supplies, Government of West Bengal and District Controller, Food and Supplies, Cooch Behar, Government of West Bengal. Further, the price at which the applicant can supply as an agent along with the elements of such prices are fixed by the District Controller, Food and Supplies Cooch Behar, Government of West Bengal.
1.3 In view of the aforesaid business activities, the applicant has made this application under sub-section (1) of section 97 of the GST Act and the rules made there under raising following questions vide serial number 14 of the application in FORM GST ARA-01:
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Could the AAR have rejected the application for Advance Ruling ?- By any thiking, the Answer, as given, could not but be /have been an emphatic ‘NnnnO”!?
INstantly comes to mind the instance in which the ITAT# refused to allow the litigant-taxpayer whose plea to allow not to pursue but the points of issue to be taken for settlement by the AO(<DRP) was rejected – Questionably so; REfer the related Pr.posts !
#https://itatonline.org/…/uploads/Technimont-DTAA.pdf
(16) – to focus on para 16 )
SEE the posted comment (S)!